Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13,482 Excellent

About mfbukowski

  • Rank
    Wittgensteinian Pot-Stirrer

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles Area
  • Interests
    My purpose in being here is to influence others to understand how the philosophy of Pragmatism relates to Mormonism. I found the church through my philosophical understanding of Pragmatism.

Recent Profile Visitors

6,901 profile views
  1. Science sometimes contradicts the Gospel

    I just want to make another comment on this- for what it is worth, I looked at least at the review on Amazon- I know- that is a pretty sorry excuse for not reading the book- but at least I got that far - and I noticed this paragraph If that is all Peirce is saying, I have no problem with calling that "language" - obviously other creatures use "signs" to signal each other- dog packs use body language, animals are drawn to food by sound and smell etc- but that doesn't mean that "propositions are in the world"- but in all CONSCIOUSNESS and are a kind of "language" within a context! I suppose if one wants to see the world that way, one can. One could make all "causality" into intention, saying that the breakage, say, of a large boulder deep in the earth "signals" to the other rocks around it to break and cause an earthquake. That is the mode of thinking here that Peirce is using but reversed. The mode I am describing puts signals into causality itself and makes everything "conscious" while Peirce seems to be making nothing conscious and putting signs into everything. But to me both those extremes are silly and unnecessary.And of course I think that Rorty gives us the best view- I don't see how monkey alarm calls put "truth" into the world any more than this conversation is "in the world". In a sense, yes, if the monkey makes an alarm call, there either really IS or IS not a threat and so in that community of monkeys that call is either "true" or "false". It might be a "false alarm"!! But do other animals using "language" place propositions into "the world" independent of conscious activity? No way! A chimp using a stick to take ants out of an ant hill is clearly an instance of an animal using a "tool"- it is evidence of consciousness, not at all like two rocks bumping into each other rolling down hill as a kind of "signal" to the other rock. Thomas Nagel speaks about bats and how they interact with sound waves to find prey and how that type of consciousness is yet another way of life exploring their "reality" and whether or not that can be classified as "objective" understanding which is "in the world" as opposed to "in the mind of the bat" https://organizations.utep.edu/portals/1475/nagel_bat.pdf I think it is clear that we do not now have such a science, but that if and when we do- we will be able to make a scientific analysis of God based on the human phenomenology of "what it is like to experience God" If it can be important to philosophy to discuss what it is like to be a bat, it is far more important to discuss what it is like to experience God.
  2. Science sometimes contradicts the Gospel

    I think there is a basic misunderstanding here. It's not that there is no "truth" - it is just that using that word is contextual and undefinable. If you want to call anything "true" I have no problem with it- I would just say we need to look at the context in which that term is used. If you use it in a context about computer languages or how they function- great, just know it is WITHIN a context and nothing more. I have no problem with "I know the church is true" in sacrament meeting or any LDS context. I think the Golden Rule is probably an "objective moral truth " in the CONTEXT of church discussions because I think it is a statement of a practice which always works in social interaction. This is about "language games" If Peirce is talking about "propositions" or you are talking about propositions there ought to be a definition because this is a philosophical discussion. EVERY serious philosopher must have their own definition or subscribe to other definitions- this is a large area in philosophy itself, defining what a "proposition" is- and so I asked you what it was for Peirce. I mean just check out this article: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/propositions/ I took a class from David Lewis at UCLA and as the article notes, this is what he thinks about the word "proposition" Later in that article this is quoted: You said that "propositions can exist outside the human mind" and I was simply questioning what that could possibly mean- I have no understanding of how that could happen. In my opinion things don't "point" to other things "in the world". You might have a perception of a thing which then is mentally associated with another by "causality" but for me and Hume the whole idea of causality for example is definitely not "in the world" but an arbitrary way of seeing things I mean it is totally clear that Peirce himself is a human being using language to create his own logical context about one way of seeing the world and there are obviously other ways of seeing the world To me that is blatantly obvious. He puts forth is triadic logic and that is a creation of Peirce, and an entire philosophical system. He was a brilliant man with a brilliant theory. Wonderful !! It is useful and functions well within certain contexts But to actually SEE that as a "correct description of language" or even a "correct description about how the world works" to me obviously inadequate. It might be useful, it might explain some logical problems but it is still a human point of view created by a human being using language. I mean how is that NOT obvious?? So the question Rorty and Wittgenstein raise is a kind of meta-question about how a view such as Peirce's could in any way itself "correspond" to "reality", and how we could know that it did I think that is what is missing here- And the final answer for me as an apologist is how the heck does Peirce's view help Mormonism? Honestly it is clear to me and many others that his "Reality of God" arguments are not really arguments and do not help the cause of theism. I am just not seeing the usefulness of his view for religion, which is my prime interest as an apologist. But here is the clincher for me We have discussed this before and you know what I think about Cartesianism- and why of course it is tied to the "ancient world" which means Aristotle and Plato and Neoplatonism etc- postulating from the beginning that there is a realm of ideas corresponding to the world outside And that is precisely where religion fails. That leads to Cardinal Bellarmine wanting the Bible to be science, it leads to substance theology and transubstantiation and precisely all the things the restoration should have been avoiding It does not make me happy. That is about the most charitable thing I can say about the correspondence theory.
  3. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    The link is in my siggy
  4. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

  5. The atonement is the forgiveness of sins Jesus wrought for us through his passion in ways that we cannot understand. Through faith, repentance and primarily His Grace, we are forgiven and re-enter his presence in heaven and succeeding stages of progression
  6. The problem is that if my neighbor has never heard of "Christ"- and my neighbor may have been born in China in 5000 BC- since we all are neighbors - then EV's think they go to hell. That is not just, it denies Christ's justice and atonement, and is a hateful attitude. There have been some changes in the PRESENTATION of the endowment but none in the endowment. There have been no changes in attitudes toward of homosexuality- just a great decision to eliminate strife in families of homosexuals to not allow children to be taught conflicting lifestyles than they see at home That is true compassion if they parents recognize it or not. Why would one want to send their children to a church where it is taught that their parents are sinners? The kids can study the faith all they want and get baptized when they are old enough to understand that their parents are engaged in a sinful relationship, and for the kids to go their own way. That is compassion for the family the parents do not even understand for their own children. We recognize that prophets are human beings who wrote what we now know as the Bible and that we all are prophets in receiving revelation for ourselves. The only way to know who is or who is not a prophet is through direct revelation from God about who or what IS in fact His "word". We do not slavishly accept the traditions of men as being from God unless God acknowledges it to our own hearts.
  7. I see them simply as sub-divisions of the other kingdoms- and we don't know much about any of them really. D&C goes into some of the three divisions in the Celestial Kingdom so three there, maybe two in the Terrestrial, the Telestial, then you have Paradise and Spirit Prison - how may is that?? It's all just words so I wouldn't get too confused. Just remember that all the divisions we LDS are accustomed to ARE part of the "SEVEN" heavens so it's all just words and how you count them I personally think we get our own private heaven tailored specifically for us in the larger kingdom or "neighborhood" So there are three neighborhoods- good better and best- and we get our own "house" in the neighbor hood which might be a little better or worse than the house next door, but still in the "neighborhood" For perfect justice I think that is the only thing that would work! Every single person is different from every other single person. And couples are unique couples, unique in their relationship and way of relating to each other but "one flesh" But then through eternal progression we can "fix it up" and maybe even knock it down or move to another neighborhood of mansions. And maybe the kids are down the street or in another nation across the world, for better or worse than we are. Maybe we get to see them maybe not, but they are still our kids. Since all we can KNOW about it for sure are metaphors anyway, I like my metaphor as much as any!!
  8. So our simple explanation is that yes, Jesus, in keeping with our understanding of his doctrine, told him that he (the thief) would be with him today in Paradise or "heaven" . So don't get confused with kingdoms here- it's simple. Paradise is where believers initially go after death. The thief showed himself to be a believer, therefore he went to paradise to be "with Jesus". If the Lord saw some extra merit in his spirit- we don't know but still what is said is in perfect harmony with our beliefs Clark is a wonderful scholar of the details of EVERYTHING and is a walking library and I admire him for his ability to pull up all these details instantly- amazing stuff! But sometimes in answering a simple question, all the scholarly details get in the way! Love ya Clark but you know it's true! I am sure that somewhere in the 32nd translation of the book of Enoch mixed with 45 Macabees in the Ethiopian translation there will be some contradiction there but that is the simple bone-headed way I look at it!
  9. But that is not close to the whole picture! What EV's call "Heaven" we would call "Paradise" which is a stage of the spirit world BEFORE resurrection- and AFTER resurrection come the "three" (with internal divisions) kingdoms. So in a sense there are 4 "heavens" to put it crudely- in fact of course they are more like stations on the railway line toward exaltation. And that also explains our ambiguity in the word "salvation" So yes, all Christians- or really keeping in mind of the scripture which says that "every knee shall bow and confess that Jesus is the Christ"- all of humanity- will be "saved" in some state like Paradise or at least the Telestial kingdom. Why all humanity? because at some stage after death at least, it will become clear to us that yes indeed Jesus IS the Son of God. So all will eventually confess that except for the sons of perdition who will remain first in "Hell= Spirit Prison" and then in outer darkness. So all who accept Christ either here or in the afterlife will eventually be resurrected - AFTER having been in Paradise ("Heaven") or Spirit Prison ("hell"- which can also be a temporary state, kind of like Catholic Purgatory, )until they have repented and been punished for their sins as needed. THEN all will be resurrected into one of the three kingdoms with their internal divisions which we know just a little about So that can be totally confusing when we speak of "salvation" because in a sense we have two meanings- at least- for "salvation". One is the EV "heaven"- you believe and accept Christ and go to Paradise and are "saved in heaven". That is available to all believers- eventually everyone who acknowledges Christ, even those who never heard of him on earth because they were born in China in 5000 BC etc. To me, that is where we go far beyond the EV concept but totally include it- it's not that they are "wrong" about salvation- they just have like 25% of the information available and are stuck working with what limited understanding they have. Hope that helps. The three kingdoms apply AFTER the resurrection. So don't confuse them with "Heaven/Paradise"" For us that is the initial stage, right after death along with "Hell/Spirit Prison". Both are temporary stages awaiting resurrection and assignment to Outer Darkness or one of the three kingdoms.
  10. Science sometimes contradicts the Gospel

    Propositions? Outside the human mind? What then defines the word? . a statement or assertion that expresses a judgment or opinion. "the proposition that all men are created equal" synonyms: theory, hypothesis, thesis, argument, premise, principle, theorem, concept, idea, statement "the analysis derives from one proposition" 2. a suggested scheme or plan of action, especially in a business context. "a detailed investment proposition" synonyms: proposal, scheme, plan, project, idea, program, bid "a business proposition"
  11. Thoughts Re: "Veils"

    Circumambulation of the source of life is a very very very ancient practice and unquestionably you are right at least in my estimation. I have posted on the remarkable blessings which come naturally to women which men have to "earn" before but I am not going there again at least here.
  12. Science sometimes contradicts the Gospel

    Calm, what did you like about Clark's post?
  13. Science sometimes contradicts the Gospel

    OK but as we have discussed before I see Peirce's philosophy as irrelevant to theology whereas Rorty is obviously directly relevant and supportive. I know you are a Peirce fan but straight up, I don't see any support there for religion of any kind and in fact arguably his attempts to do so are faulty http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/trancharpeirsoc.50.2.175 And it appears to me that musement itself is a problematic notion.
  14. No more First Presidency messages?

    Hopefully if anything this will extend the movement of the church from "canned" lessons virtually read from the manual and encourage actual communication with the Spirit to develop lessons as needed tailored to the needs of the recipients. Imagine actually asking what they would like to discuss next month and preparing a scripture discussion?